**4. Mirror, mirror on the wall… but is this theater or storytelling?**

Which aspects of theater and performativity permeate storytelling? What is the line between literature and theater in the act of storytelling? What differentiates storytelling from history at the theater?

There are many debates about storytelling as an art by itself, or part of theater, or literature. My focus in this research is not to advocate for any topic. However, positioning my perspective in the research, storytelling is a performatic art (in the sense it is an artistic moment in which the storyteller is part of a piece and also a person is part of that piece). Thus, it belongs to the Scenic Arts—it is not theater, but shares with it common points.

The first argument of defenders for a differentiation and/or categorization between theater and storytelling focuses on the figure of the actor versus the narrator. While the actor "incorporates" a character, the narrator tells us about a character. This way, the narrator would present a character while an actor would be the character.

Another issue is the fourth wall in theater<sup>5</sup> but not in storytelling: in the latter, the communication between the narrator and the public must be direct. The issue of scenario is also raised: while in the theater it is necessary, in storytelling it is not and might happen in any place. Another issue is the fact that theater represents a story while storytelling tells a story. However, some storytellers are actors and some actors are storytellers. They question the line that splits these two divides that makes less and less sense.

Overall, these are the main arguments to distinguish storytelling from theater. However, theater and arts are being transformed and questioned about their forms and definitions. The frontiers among different artistic expressions—dance, theater, music, performance, visual art, cinema, etc. —are redesigned and redefined all the time and the line between one and the other is often undefined. Still, storytellers from literature expressions have another differentiation between the storyteller and the narrator. Storytellers would be actors/actresses aiming to interpret but not message, while narrators aim to share experiences and the making of a text or story. In the postmodernity lines between arts are "blurry", as a mixture and appropriation from one artistic form by the author give the tone of the era. The main tone then is the aim to do art that ends up mostly in experimentation that may potentially conduct the artist or artistic piece to various ways.

Furthermore, is it worth the question of which theater it's approached? Greek theater? Postmodern? Musical? Popular? Classic? What are the contemporary definitions of actor and theater? These issues, with no universal and definitive answers, are constantly changing and being scrutinized by researchers. I will point out worthy differences between the actor and the storyteller, instead of answering the questions.

Storyteller gives their body, soul, imagination, voice and sound to give life for a story that he might not have written originally, but will certainly retell, recreate and redefine each performance: they are performers of other authorships. Both the actor and the storyteller have a working tool to communicate with the audience: the body (physical body and voice). Both the actor and the storyteller give life to old or new texts through the body relation with the audience. However, the narrator blends real and fictional elements for situations from the past, while the actor works in live situations. "Oral narration of stories is an art fully developed only at the moment of a performance. As dancing, theater and singing, oral narration leaves incomplete tracks in the physical supports that try to save it. Oral narration's unpredictability is the measure of its vitality, as it is fully reached in the encounter with the recipient in [15]".

Hence, what is the actual difference between theater and storytelling? For me, theater puts the text in movement, while the storytelling puts the movement in the text: this is a worthy nuance. Maybe the main difference between theater and storytelling is the figure actor/actress x narrator: while the former represents, the latter presents. At storytelling, the narrator is a performer who presents himself or herself to the public and at the same time accepts intervention from the public. Elements, such as rhythm, intention and images, are worth in theater and other artistic languages, although differentiated.

Narrator or narration figures are worth since the Greek theater and perpasses all times. They might be noted in the narrator figure in prologs of Greek pieces (including the choir) and the Renaissance to narrate moments that are not revealed

<sup>5</sup> It is worth mentioning that the expression "fourth wall" is more "conservative" and a collective imaginary about a specific model of doing theater—the Italian stage. Thus, the "fourth wall" is not a reference of doing theater, as Brecht's, postmodern theater, street theater and others that do not have the "fourth wall".

*Having a New Point in Each Story: Potential Insertions of Theater in Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113002*

directly in the scenes. In other words, instead of representing (doing) something, they would present (tell) that. Still, it might be the case that a courier in the middle of a piece just narrates a fact that will change or settle the next events, as medieval minstrels; the narrator at the epic theater from Brecht; actors in popular theater, etc., the fact is that narration and/or the narrator figure is always alive in the theater.

### **5. Dragons? Knight? Goblins? No! A tempest**

Believe that people enjoy listening to and telling stories, almost as an inherent act of human beings. Tales of La Fontaine, *causos* of Ariano Suassuna, stories of the Grimm Brothers, *cordéis*, Disney fairy tales, Marvel and DC Comics adventures and heroes, tales of Marquees de Sade, urban legends, the Greek, Roman and Egyptian myths… The truth is, the major part of knowledge we have is being transmitted from generation to generation through storytelling, both oral and written. Historical facts, real or fictitious stories: stories are alive in every culture around the world.

The storytelling itself provides children the discovery of the world through the presentation and resolution of conflicts. Therefore, working with the plot of *The Tempest* could be a way of provoking children to reflect so they could sharpen and stimulate critical sense. Playing raises questions about cause and consequence, action and reaction, showing that our choices pave our ways. Playing might be good, bad, dangerous, helpful and susceptible of praise and/or reprehension and is always a result of our decisions and actions. The main character pursued—through knowledge—humanist values and believed in the capacity of realization of men. Another interesting component is relative to the dispute and use of power that runs through the whole play, reaching directly or indirectly every character in this story. *The Tempest* could serve as a way of taking distance from children stereotypes, so it is a method to work with human elements that are presented in all ages. Nevertheless, this has to be made with aesthetical and ethical care while we are dealing with children, that is to say: at the same time, the play brings elements of a fairy tale, it also works with the reality of human relations.

Another reason that led me to choose this play was the place where everything happens and the message it leaves to us. Every action of *The Tempest* happens in an island, just like a world apart where everything is permitted, almost through some kind of enchantment, letting everyone to manifest his or her real feelings. The island allows the meeting with the other, and the creation of a net of relations between the characters, a web of affectionate, philosophical, social and political relations. Since the objective is the Scenic-Narrative Experience in the Centers of Childhood Education, thinking about a specific scenario was the only way to ease both the production and the comprehension of children about the proposal parts.

Many people, including educators, could question the author and the play we choose. However, I think that when we show to the kids just happy-ending or "childish" stories, we end up underestimating the imagination and the small children's capacity to understand. From an early age, it is important that they have contact with stories that are capable of sharpening their curiosity: stories that raise dilemmas and reflections. Bringing closer the fantasy of reality—where the children will live in a determined real situation, but hypothetically—is a way that children have to build a sense of right and wrong, cause and consequence. Furthermore, this is a way for children to live emotions, like anxiety, anger and vengeance, in a positive way. Thereby,

they can glimpse at tangible possibilities of resolving their own inside dilemmas and external conflicts through the plot.

With a chosen story, then we managed to understand it better: studying its lines and interlines of secondary speeches, the character's nuances, and even what and how could the storytelling proceed. The idea was to be faithful to the story of *The Tempest*, but the question we discussed most was the issue of fidelity to the written play. How could one naturally tell a story from a script considered far-fetched and hard to understand? How could one put words into movement? The first step would be to understand a story and our personal interpretation of it. The piece approaches power, good and evil, illusion versus reality, vengeance, discovery and redemption.

Analyzing the play, we can divide it into three branches: power, comedy and romance. Yet, when we start to deepen this analysis, we discover that the whole plot spins around a fight for power, that is apparently present in one of the cores, but that permeates and connects the three of them.

In the romantic core, there are Ferdinand and Miranda, but also Prospero who desires the marriage of the young couple, so his daughter can become the princess of Napoli. Therefore, as soon as he gets back to Milan into his dukedom, he will have influence in Napoli through his daughter. Just like other Shakespeare's plays, the conflict between families and/or parents ends up to be solved through their sons.

In the comic core, the sailors Trinculo and Stephano (who represent, in the play, the people in general), even drunk, are instigated by Caliban to kill Prospero and govern the island. When Caliban transits through this nucleus, he plots the death of Prospero, so that he does not have any kind of power upon the island or upon him anymore, in an opportunist kind of conspiracy. Also in the same nucleus, the sailors seduce Caliban—the island is native—with a "drink of the gods" for him to show the wealthy and the beauties of the place, just like it happened when the Portuguese arrived in Brazil, offering mirrors and other tools to the Native American people.

In the nucleus of power, the relations are clearer: on one side, Prospero is willing to return being a duke. On the other side, his brother Antonio and the Napoli king's brother (Sebastian) are willing to kill the king and take the power of Napoli. At the end of the play, Shakespeare prepares his *grand finale* gathering the three nucleuses in a common scene to the settlement of scores.

Regarding the message of the play, I think that it has a critical particular and timeless function. In a symbolic way, it speaks about encounters between different kinds of life, culture and social organization; different kinds of thinking, acting and different moral values, composing a plurality of worlds that Prospero tries to control.

#### **5.1 Transforming** *The Tempest* **in a new story to be told**

Every story has a beginning: a door through which we enter in the plot. Nevertheless, the beginning does not mean necessarily the beginning of the story, or determined chronological way of telling the facts that we should follow. A beginning means a starting point. It is like a house with many windows that you can come closer and choose any window to spy. As far as you choose a window, a new part of the house will reveal itself. The same thing happens to the story, because you can choose where to "spy" first and that is your beginning. After all, the stories also have many sides, various parts and "rooms".

With the story chosen, it was time to think about how it was going to be told. The main objective was to work with theater and spatiality in storytelling, thus creating opportunities to link action and feeling through the children's bodies, contrasting to

#### *Having a New Point in Each Story: Potential Insertions of Theater in Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113002*

an essentially verbal approach. In other words, the goal was not to transmit a specific knowledge, or any kind of formation to the little ones. On the contrary, the mixing of the process and the product, the spectator and the storyteller, reality and fantasy was the goal. The dramatic line to tell the story would keep not only a few characteristics of the original narrative, but also the embodiment of some characteristics of modern types of narrative. The actors/storytellers should not memorize the text, or parts of it; they should understand it, be hypnotized by it, so children hearing them could be "hypnotized" as well through a personal encounter with the story. We wanted the storytelling with freshness and a corporeal rhythm that would communicate to children a sense of freedom and confluence, so they could appreciate the moment and be willing to know what would come next.

An important point was the public would stay in the middle of the room. They would be in the center of the action, and all the rest (narration and scenes) would be surrounding them. This disposition of the space would also serve to instigate and call children at any moment to direct their eyes and bodies to a different space of the ambient. Thereby, we blurred the idea of the spectator as someone seated and inert watching passively at something that would happen in front of him or her.

As every action of the play happens in an island, the plot might be divided in the nucleus, so we thought about making children try the sensation of also being on the island, which would be divided in different parts as well. This division, as a way to identify the nucleus and characters, would provide a better understanding of the plot by children. To symbolize this "division" of the island, we chose to work with different colors to each core and to materialize these spaces and colors, we used carpets.

In this way, we agreed to work with five colors of carpets: blue, red, green, brown and orange. The blue carpet would be in the middle, where the children would also be seated (at least most of the time); the red carpet would be in the entrance, at right, representing the part of the island where Prospero and his daughter Miranda live. The green carpet, in its turn, would stay at the back in the right side, representing the part of the island where the nobles are residing; the brown carpet, in the left side at the back, representing the place of the island where Caliban lives, where he meets with Trinculo and Stefano. Finally, the orange carpet's position would be in the right side at the front, representing the part of the island where Ferdinand was lost. We decided that Ariel (spirit of the air) would be the only one to move freely around every nucleus/part of the island.

From the beginning of the research, I was convicted that I wanted to tell a story in a different way, so children would not be mere spectators. The aim of making the story a reason to play with children should provide them sensorial and cognitive experiences, thus aspects as sounds, smells, visual stimuli, etc., were worth as the environment that would invite children to get involved with a story.

The idea of making the storytelling with Shakespeare and theatrical principles was also a way of allowing spaces for the experience that could solve the frontiers between formation, theatrical action and artistic reception. Therefore, it was necessary to think about a scenic environment that would enable children to enter in a fiction ambient with visual and sensorial sensations.

The child does not necessarily tell the story but does participate actively in the storytelling through games and jokes. Therefore, scenic and audio environments and the objects should be of particular relevance for children to activate or develop affective memory, thus creating records through storytelling and playing at the same time.

Having playing in mind, I started to search for a scenic environment that could open up the possibility for children to try the sensorial story and emotionally in their bodies, besides listening to it. Thus, they would have a space in a threshold between fiction and reality that could stimulate interactions among children and the environment, thus sharpening imagination and providing the possibility of increasing their perceptive horizons.

Dewey, as much as Vygotsky, described how important is a physical environment enriched with materials and objects. This ambient affects directly children's behavior learning processes. Likewise, it was important to organize and select the materials and objects that we would have in our story, for instance choosing how it would be organized in the room.

At the same time, the environment needs to be a place of complicity and confidence for children to feel safe to play. This was one of the reasons that led me to choose that the storytelling should be in the same space that children would attend, like children's educational centers. However, it was necessary to create a different atmosphere from the daily life to promote curiosity and imagination for the story.

There were many elements to think of. I was searching for a scenic environment connected to the fictional context of the story and capable of generating a material that would give support to the narrative, thus transmitting safety to children release themselves and get involved with visual, sonorous and tactile stimuli. I believe that when we embrace plastically, audiovisual, musical and linguistic aspects, the work can mobilize sensorial, motor, symbolic, affective and cognitive dimensions of children.

At first, I started to work with triggers and/or scenic devices that could help to build the narrative and unravel the story piece by piece—layers and not necessarily linearly. The aim of the work was that the children could have to perform their own experiments with these objects and the narrative because creativity can be learned and stimulated. Therefore, materials, time and encouragement are needed from people who conduct these activities. I believe that the teacher can build or promote the learning space of students: "when children have opportunities to be creative, their language, social and cognitive skill grow" [16].

However, the actors/narrators had difficulties in telling the story through the objects. Although I said they could insert elements in their stories that were not in Shakespeare's pieces, they were really stuck to the written story. The thought that "if the actors cannot do it, how could children be able to?" started to emerge. After performing some further experiments, we decided that the story would not be told through the objects, but with them. We changed the focus to think about ornaments and scenic elements capable of characterizing the space where the story was going to happen. From then on, conditions were created to discover how we would tell the story of a *tempest.*

In the search for a scenic environment that was capable of becoming an immersive ambient for the children to feel stimulated to explore the space, we started to look for fictional elements with a potential to become concrete objects. The first idea that came to our minds was the "transportation" of children to the island where the whole action of playing happens. Thus, the storytelling should happen in a closed space: a classroom.

We wanted to have architecture as a reference to make associations between the space where the characters were stuck: in other words, an island and the classroom where students are "captivated" most of the day.

From this thought, we considered that it would be important to work with a materiality that could go beyond the five senses (tactile, hearing, sight, palate and sense of smell), in a way that the dramatical process of the story could be stimulated.

#### *Having a New Point in Each Story: Potential Insertions of Theater in Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113002*

The story would be found and woven gently by the storytellers and the children. It is important to say that all intentions and objectives should be rooted in the act of playing games and/or other plays. That reminded me of something very simple, but that delighted me when I was a child and is still a source of joy: the tunnel.

In many public spaces with reserved areas for children, there is a concrete tunnel for them to go through, as well as closed slides in a tunnel form. In indoor parks (shopping centers and children funhouses), there are toys with tunnels. In children's programs, there are tests where children need to walk through a tunnel and so on. The examples are many, and I thought they were a good idea to start the storytelling, because to enter a tunnel seems to be a good way of stirring up the imagination with children.

After some experiences, our story would start with one of the actors/storytellers going to the children's classroom and asking them to be part of an adventure. To begin with, children would have to take up a courage test: they have to pass through a *tempest*. Lanterns are then distributed to them and they enter with one of the actors/ storytellers in a dark tunnel where they experience the storm. Outside, the other actors/storytellers make sounds that remit to a *tempest* at the sea (thunders, bolts, wind, storm, rough sea, etc.) while they say some phrases to start the play.

The invitation for children to enter the tunnel is a way of awakening the curiosity in them to get into the "unknown" and live an adventure. It is also an act of intentionality, in which every child can choose if they want to be in a tunnel or not. Participating in a storm inside a tunnel manufactured with black cloth is a simulation of a certain reality but with concrete elements that allow imagination and creativity to arise.

I preferred to put the actors/storytellers outside the tunnel, so that they could realize the sonorous ambiance apart from the "scene". This was the beginning of the play, and the starting point of our storytelling was directly connected to the experience of fear and the capacity to overcome it. Fear was a question that worried us because we always thought that the scene inside the tunnel with the storm narration in the dark could frighten the children in a way that would make them want to come out of the tunnel, instead of being stimulated to face it. Thus, we decided that each child could choose if he or she would like to cross the tunnel or stay outside it. Those who chose to stay out of the tunnel would be invited to help us create the sound effects of the storm.

For this purpose, we provided X-ray sheets, *rain sticks* and letter-size paper sheets and asked them to blow and to make sounds with their mouths that reminded us of the sound of the wind. This way, they would get interested and curious—both children who decided to enter the tunnel or those who chose to stay out.

When the sea and the *tempest* calmed down, the children are invited to get their boats (paper ships—origami—hung along the tunnel, but not opened yet) and to get out of the tunnel. For those who chose to be outside the tunnel, one of the actors/ storytellers would give them the boat. The way out of the tunnel leads them to the entrance door of the room. Once at the door, the children are suggested to leave their lanterns in a wooden box and to open their boats to be able to get to the island. With the boats in their hands and oriented by one of the actors/storytellers, everyone goes sailing through the room and "discover" the island until they sit in the middle (blue carpet).

In every island's core (carpets), there would be a rack on the floor with accessories that would distinguish each character in the course of the storytelling. In the cores, there would also be a stair (to symbolize a tree) or wooden cubes. The actors/ storytellers are wearing overalls of different colors, with specific clothes to make the narrator, and put on the accessories/objects every time they will play a character. Everyone passes through the attribution of being a narrator or a character during the show/storytelling.

With everyone—spectators and actors/storytellers—inside the room, the five actors/storytellers would start to present Shakespeare to children, speaking about the story in some kind of introduction before starting the storytelling itself.

During the whole show/storytelling, children are expected to participate actively, going through the experience of being inside the story through games and plays, as telling a story is a way of giving life to it.

I would like to highlight specific moments of the storytelling where the children are invited to play and to interact with the story:

*\* Scene 1 - Caliban and the sailors: they go out to kill Prospero, find the kids, think they are very sad, distribute small bottles with magical grape fruit and ask them to play circle games. They make two circles and play.*

*\* Scene 2 – Marriage between Miranda and Ferdinand: soap bubbles are distributed to the public, so that they can make the magical party Prospero ordained Ariel to do.*

*\* Scene 3 – Caliban does not want to fulfill his tasks: Ariel distributes feathers to the children to tickle him.*

*\* Scene 4 – Caliban and the sailors go to Prospero's cave to kill him: first, one of the actors/storytellers plays "statue" with the kids and then "teaches" them to imitate a dog. When Caliban and the sailors draw near, everyone turns into a statue. When they go to get the statues, they "transform" into dogs and chase the sailors and Caliban.*

*\* Scene 5 – Antonio plans to kill the King of Napoli: some children are chosen to wear vests and receive the rack's "hooks" to "watch" if no one is coming. Other children receive whistles and keep "monitoring" to wake up the king in the right time to avoid his death.*

*\* Scene 6 – Ariel, under the orders of Prospero, tries to drive the nobles mad, giving them visions of a feast with music and spirits: fruits are distributed to the children.*

These are some moments of interactions between public, story and actors/storytellers. In the course of all the storytelling, children are instigated to participate, relate with the objects, be part of the scenario and to use the outfits. They are invited to sing, dance, play, move from one island to another, to eat fruits and to drink magical juices, etc. In a natural way, children take control of the story, becoming characters and/or accomplices of the actors/storytellers, "performing" and making theater.

In all moments, elements and sonorities are made available to displace children between reality and fiction, so the spectators are involved and stimulated to build their own images of the story. These images are triggered from the space and its ambiance. Regardless of the idea of informing, we privileged the idea of forming. In other words, we should tell the story that Shakespeare wrote but want children to live the story or "understand" the story according to their own way of understanding things.

#### *Having a New Point in Each Story: Potential Insertions of Theater in Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113002*

According to Desgranges [8], the spectator is not someone who assumes a passive posture in front of the artwork, but someone who is there to draw up his or her own particular interpretation of it. The "understanding" of determined artwork is not given as something immutable by its creators, and is being constantly built and rebuilt by its spectators through a creative, productive and authorial act.

Finally, actors/storytellers sit around children asking them to tell their favorite stories that could be true or invented. Each one of the five actors/storytellers keeps a group of children and stimulates this group to choose their favorite characters of stories they know, to tell stories they know and to choose drawing as to what symbolizes these characters. The actors/storytellers use a body painting pencil, make drawings on the kids and paint their hands, faces and shoulders, and vice versa.

### **6. Conclusion: another point… follow the yellow bricks road**

We presented the Scenic-Narrative Experiences in the five Centers of Early Childhood Education in Brazil in 2018. In this conclusion, I'll try to answer some questions: what kind of experience do children live with their presentations? What kinds of questions were raised through the experiences? Was the Scenic-Narrative Experience really a free space for children to play, or did the actors/storytellers direct it all? Was there any kind of theatrical learning?

Before I answer these questions, it is important to say that in 2016 and 2017, I developed workshops with teachers working in these early childhood education centers. In these workshops, I worked on storytelling using summaries of Shakespeare's plays, so that later these teachers could experience in their workplaces what was experienced and produced during the workshops. It was also the objective of the workshop to collect data on how teachers understood and work with storytelling in their own daily routine and what possible bridges or connections we could make with theater. The idea was to awaken in the participants an interest in new possibilities and ways of telling a story, permeating literature, but mainly with a focus on the body, sensations and discoveries of new paths through storytelling. Then, we presented the scenic-narrative experiences.

As every presentation happened in the classroom space, this apparently common place turned out to be part of the narrative as it was transformed into an island. Children interchanged the roles of the spectator or performer during the Scenic-Narrative Experience, thus mixing up narrative and performance. Children played in a familiar space and gave a new meaning to it. In doing so, real and fictional roles were mixed, as each kid constructed a particular narrative of the story through theater and performance playing in a playfulness space.

During the Scenic-Narrative Experience, children lived and thought with autonomy in an environment they were heard of and respected: active human beings with autonomy in the process of teaching-learning. In the experience, I was willing to understand to which extent children based their experiences on their own will and were interlocutors and creators of the story they were living together.

The search for a rational understanding of the story was based on senses, relation between body and space, feelings and other issues that promoted imaginative activities. In other words, through imagination, creativity and emotions, children built meanings and feelings to the reality around them.

Imagination is an incentive to build a "reality" in other terms: the way some situation could develop with some magic and color, the invention of the impossible through different sensorial stimuli beyond exchange of information and the forming of relationships. Building a meaning to the story through the qualities' imagination and embodiment in as an environment of cognitive stimulation is different from accepting a meaning assigned by others and is more substantial.

Thus, in the fieldwork we had some time for children to absorb the Scenic-Narrative Experience in their own way: no obligation of trying to rationalize through words or drawings. Each child had sensations they experimented and a painting (in a certain part of their body) of characters of their stories—and not necessarily of the story that was being told. Subjectivity, sensitivity and imagination, instead of objectivity and reason, were the subjects being researched. I searched for an experience that, according to Larrosa [17], would produce effect and leave some traces or impressions.

The Scenic-Narrative Experience was built to involve every participant with sensations, so that each could live an experience that went through all personal senses. Therefore, all participants were part of the story that was being narrated, performed and experienced. The objective of this experience might construct the learning process through lived experiences in a fictional context inside a space of creation and fun.

For the proposal to work, availability of children was needed: they were supposed to participate in the game, the scenic and sonorous environment, thus diving into the story, touches touch and let. In this way, they could sharpen their senses and perceptions, provoking the feeling—not the rational thinking. Constructing a space that made children feel safe at the same time that instigated them was crucial for children to play freely with the story, and to relate it realistically with the fictional context, thus getting immersed in the act of playing.

Because the space was at the same time the island of Prospero and the classroom of the participants, they felt safe when they saw their names in the lockers, their toys in the right place, their backpacks, etc. However, at the same time there was also a variety of new and unknown elements that provoked their curiosity; things they could touch, move, take, etc.

During presentations, we were not willing to guide children. Orientations were given, but children were free to move from an island to the other or even get out of the classroom. Because of that privilege given to children, it was necessary to speak with other teachers and auxiliaries that they were not supposed to interfere, but to ask children to keep seated down and remain silent. In order to make the idea of playing work, it was necessary to leave children free to enter or not in the game, to look or not to at a scene or narrative, and to accept or not to play with us.

Although the focus on listening was given, other types of focuses are also worth vision, tactile perception, smells and tastes. Therefore, searching for a logic that could reach feelings rather than rationalization of verbal communication was also a goal. Thus, children's understanding of stories was never an objective.

The physical proximity with the artists allowed the children to touch, grab, pull and watch actors/narrators, thus provoking complicity and fellowship among them. This intimacy generated confidence and in fact they felt invited to be part of what the story and gradually the lines between production and enjoyment were getting dissolved.

Another factor I considered important was the end of the story without formal issues, such as applause or chats. The story ended up with everybody seated and sharing own stories like in a game: "I just played; now it's your turn!"

As Piaget (1928) skillfully states, children build their knowledge through the interaction with the world around and this is the reason why it is important to have

#### *Having a New Point in Each Story: Potential Insertions of Theater in Childhood Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113002*

the freedom to touch, see, explore and manipulate different objects, thus allowing children to participate in different games and plays, singing, dancing, jumping, moving, etc. Put in other words, children must have daily opportunities to express their creativity, and I believe the Scenic-Narrative Experience is such opportunity.

After listening to the story and having the opportunity to tell their own stories at the end, children had the chance to "woven narratively their experience," and through this experience they were capable of understanding themselves as cultural subjects. Like Girardelo states: "Through listening stories […] and perceiving their own stories being listened, children woven narratively their experiences and by doing so they constitute themselves as cultural subjects. By getting into a narrative game teachers and children increase the common symbolic space full of images, corporal and cultural reverberation of their voices – the scope of the children's education. Thus, they become human beings that are narrated and narrators with all the favorable implications of it to the personal, social and cultural life of each and of the group in 15]".

During presentations, children were able to get involved emotionally with the story and communicate with each other. I believe they had their creativity sharpened and a greater interaction with the group. Through the game with their pairs and with narrators/storytellers, the capacity of a group working and solving problems was stimulated. This quality of interacting with the other and solving problems will help the child to develop posterior abilities like writing, mathematics and the capacity of solving misunderstandings with classmates.

One of the main characteristics of the contemporary theater—performativity or postdramatic—is the dilution of its borders with other kinds of art, like visual arts, performance, dance and music. In the storytelling, this happens as well, as Fabio Medeiros says: "It is not necessary too much effort to cross the art of storytelling with other artistically languages, because they are settled on the back and forth of arts, bit directly or indirectly. Painting, theater, pantomime, dance, music, opera, cinema, animation, architecture, sculpture, technological arts, games and television: they are the soul of human beings in [18]".

The Scenic-Narrative Experience was similar, as besides games and playing different artistic languages were employed, such as music, visual arts, theater and dance.

When one thinks about formal or informal theater's learning practices in educational spaces, the discussion about contemporary theater is necessary. Thus, we need to propose a construction of knowledge that might arise from the experience provoked by game and theatrical practice. This way, people do not become captive to rules and methodologies. On the contrary, each technique or methodology has to be considered as possibilities and should be reviewed with a look that converges with artistic practices of the theater professor.

Daily routines of classrooms—accomplishment of a high loading time schedule, fulfillment of plans and diaries, planning, meetings, following parameters, guidelines and curricular base—frequently give little room for creativity that goes beyond school parameters. Nevertheless, educators should keep in mind that the educational nature of art is born from experience (Dewey). Certain knowledge we learn by doing, so through the experience of acting.

For this reason, every scenic and audio conception of Scenic-Narrative Experience came from the idea that it could work as a trigger or dispositive that produces sensorial stimuli on the spectators. This can be made by the offering of materials that stimulate and explore children's possibilities, instead of seeking which answers they would give to these experiences: no predefined objectives should be stated, thus

opening up space for the uncertain and unexpected. Therefore, the actors/storytellers have to be prepared for improvising and the unannounced.

I believe in the pedagogical power of theater that lives in the aesthetical and collective capacity of awakening different ways of thinking and affecting children's behavior through their exchange with pairs. In this sense, the Scenic-Narrative Experience is capable of generating a perceptive experience of narration of a story. When children live their adventure in an island, they participate collectively in a fiction with own body, sensorial and cognitive experiences. Each object or scenario has a symbolic value for the story but also evoked curiosity in children. To achieve these objectives, a creative scenario for interactions of children in theater through storytelling was provided.
